Reidbord Bros. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 321 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

REIDBORD BROS . CO. 321
Reidbord Bros. Co . and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , Pittsburgh District Joint
Board , AFL-CIO, and Reidbord Pittsburgh
Quota Club, Party in Interest . Cases 6-CA-4603
and 6-CA-4604
June 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN
On January 20, 1970, Trial Examiner William J.
Brown issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. He further found that
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended that the allegations pertaining
thereto be dismissed Thereafter, both the General
Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed The rulings are
hereby affirmed The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the briefs, and the entire
record in these cases, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act at its Van-
dergrift plant by President Reidbord's and Super-
visor Irma Peterson's threats to close the plant un-
less the employees ousted their bargaining
representative; Peterson's interrogation of em-
ployee Patricia Onifer, and Reidbord's suggestion
that the employees decertify their bargaining
representative in favor of increased employer
benefits through a club arrangement,' and that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) at
Vandergrift by withdrawing recognition of the
Union and thereafter refusing to bargain with it.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) at its Baum Bou-
levard plant by Reidbord's suggestions that the em-
ployees accept increased employer benefits through
a club arrangement as a substitute for unionization;
Reidbord's coercive interrogation of employees at a
meeting in May, and Supervisor Silvaggio 's inter-
rogation of employee Maria Coridetti.
The Trial Examiner recommended the issuance
of a narrow cease-and-desist order. The General
ounsel contends that the violation found warrant
the issuance of a broad order since they run to the
heart of the Act.3 We find merit in this contention
as it relates to the Vandergrift plant, where Respon-
dent, as the Trial Examiner found , engaged in a
broad campaign of unfair labor practices designed
to destroy the employees' bargaining representa-
tive. However, we find that the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner is appropriate for
the Baum Boulevard plant, as it is commensurate
with the unfair labor practices committed at that
plant.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Reid-
bord Bros. Co , its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified.
1 Delete paragraph 1(c) and substitute the fol-
lowing.
"(c) Suggesting to employees the displacement
of the Union as their representative at its Van-
dergrift plant in favor of increased Employer
benefits through the Club or a comparable arrange-
ment; and suggesting to employees at its Baum
Boulevard plant that they accept increased Em-
ployer benefits through the Club or a comparable
arrangement as a substitute for unionization."
i These findings and conclusions are based , in part , upon the credibility
determinations of the Trial Examiner , to which Respondent excepts On
the basis of our own careful review of the record, we conclude that the
Trial Examiner 's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence Accordingly , we find no basis for
disturbing those findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544,
enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
"The Trial Examiner credited employee Helen Marchcse's testimony
that President Reidbord introduced the subject of a club arrangement at his
first meeting with the Baum Boulevard employees , but in one instance in-
advertently stated that this had taken place at his first meeting with the
Vandergrift employees It was employee% Mavis Coco , Geraldine Sproull,
Patricia Onifcr, Ruth Held, Loretta Cappo, and Mary Morgan, who
credibly testified that Reidbord introduced the subject of a club arrange-
ment at Vandergrift Hugh Casper was employed at the Penn Avenue, not
the Baum Boulevard, plant
iSee, e g,NLR B v Entwistle Mfg Co, 120F2d532(CA 4),enfg
as modified 23 NLRB 1058
" As requested by Respondent, we shall provide for separate notices to
be posted at Vandergrift and Baum Boulevard conforming with our order
See Lawler'' Cafeteria & Catering Company, 138 NLRB 352
184 NLRB No. 33
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
2. Delete paragraph 1(d) and substitute the fol-
lowing:
"(d) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees at its Baum
Boulevard plant in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act; and in any other manner in-
terfering with, restraining, or coercing employees at
its Vandergrift plant in the exercise of their rights
under Section 7 of the Act."
3. Delete the first sentence of paragraph 2(b)
and insert in its place the following:
"(b) Post at its plant in Vandergrift copies of the
attached notice marked Appendix-Vandergrift;
and post at its Baum Boulevard plant copies of the
attached notice marked Appendix- Baum Bou-
levard."
4 Substitute the attached Notice(s) to Em-
ployees, marked "Appendix-Vandergrift," and
"Appendix- Baum Boulevard," for that recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively
with the Union as exclusive representative of
Vandergrift employees in the above unit and
embody in a written and signed agreement un-
derstandings reached as a result of such bar-
gaining.
REIDBORD BROS. CO.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
APPENDIX-VANDERGRIFT Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000
Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222,
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES Telephone 412-644-2977.
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amer-
ica, Pittsburgh District Joint Board, AFL-CIO,
as exclusive representative of Vandergrift em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, namely:
All production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Company's Vandergrift
plant, excluding office clerical employees
and guards, professional employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT suggest to employees that they
displace the Union in favor of greater benefits
from the Company through the Quota Club or
any comparable arrangement.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate em-
ployees concerning their membership in or
sympathy for the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant
because the Union is the representative of em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their rights to self-organization guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the ex-
tent that any such rights may be affected by an
APPENDIX-BAUM BOULEVARD
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT suggest to employees that they
accept greater benefits from the Company
through the Quota Club or any comparable ar-
rangement as a substitute for the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, Pittsburgh Dis-
trict Joint Board, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate em-
ployees concerning their memberships in or
sympathy for the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, coerce , or restrain our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the ex-
tent that any such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
REIDBORD BROS . CO. 323
ganization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 7 of the Act.
REIDBORD BROS. CO
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
its principal office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is
engaged at its Pennsylvania plants in the manufac-
ture and nonretail sale of clothing. During the year
preceding issuance of the complaints herein the
Company received goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania and shipped from its
Pennsylvania plants directly to points outside the
Commonwealth goods valued in excess of $50,000.
I find, as the Company concedes, that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the purview of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office , 1536 Federal Building, 1000
Liberty Avenue , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania 15222,
Telephone 412-644-2977.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
WILLIAM J. BROWN, Trial Examiner: This con-
solidated proceeding under Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
hereinafter referred to as the Act, came on to be
heard at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on November 5
and 6, 1969.1 The original charges of unfair labor
practices had been filed May 22, by the above-in-
dicated Charging Party, hereinafter sometimes
referred to as the Union, and the complaints here
were issued on October 2 by the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board acting
through the Board's Regional Director for Region
6. They allege, in addition to jurisdictional matter,
that the above-indicated Respondent, hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the Company, engaged in
unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)( I ),
(2), and (5) of the Act. The Company's duly filed
answer has denied the commission of the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
At the hearing the parties appeared2 and par-
ticipated as noted above with full opportunity to
present evidence and argument on the issues. Sub-
sequent to the close of the hearing briefs were
received from the General Counsel and the Com-
pany and have been fully considered. On the entire
record herein and on the basis of my observation of
the witnesses I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find
that the Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with
Dates hereinafter , unless otherwise specified, relate to the year 1969
= No separate appearance was entered on behalf of the Party in Interest
3 Casper is also a company vice president
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find
that the Union is a labor organization within the
purview of Section 2(5) of the Act. The complaint
in Case 6-CA-4604 alleges and the answer denies
that the above-indicated Party in Interest,
hereinafter referred to as the Club, is also a labor
organization within the meaning of that section. For
reasons hereinafter detailed I conclude that it is
not.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction to the Issues
The Company's Pennsylvania operations are car-
ried on in manufacturing plants at Baum Boulevard,
Pittsburgh, and at Vandergrift, the latter some 35
miles east of Pittsburgh. There is also a distribution
center at Penn Avenue, in Pittsburgh where the
Company maintains its general offices. There are
four West Virginia manufacturing operations, two
at Elkins and one each at Buckhannon and Philippi;
these are some 100 miles south of Pittsburgh. The
Company's supervisory staff includes, in addition to
President Murray Reidbord, Baum Boulevard Plant
Manager Gregory Silvaggio and Penn Avenue
Production Manager Hugh Casper.3 Charles Leff,
vice president in charge of manufacturing and an
admitted supervisor, rotates regularly among all the
manufacturing operations. Leff's second-in-com-
mand at Vandergrift is Irma Peterson whose super-
visory status is disputed.
In 1951 the Union was certified as the statutory
bargaining representative of Vandergrift employees
in a unit consisting of all production and main-
tenance employees, excluding office clerical em-
ployees and guards, professional employees and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.4 Contractual rela-
tions were maintained thereafter until, by letter of
June 24, 1969, the Company notified the Union
that it would withdraw recognition on the termina-
' The Union was recertified on August 20, 1958, following an election
conducted pursuant to an RM petition
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of the existing agreement on September 1
because of the filing of a decertification petition
and because it doubted the Union 's continuing
majority status.
Union Representative Charies Litell came to
Pittsburgh in January to assist in organizing em-
ployees at the Baum Boulevard and Penn Avenue
locations and on March 25 sent a telegram to
Silvaggio claiming majority status at Baum Boule-
vard and requesting recognition and collective
bargaining . On March 26 the Union filed a repre-
sentation petition respecting a production and main-
tenance unit at Baum Boulevard and in April a
stipulation for certification upon consent election
was executed ; the election was held in abeyance
following the filling of the charges in the instant
case.
The case presents the question as to whether, as
alleged by the General Counsel and denied by the
Company, Reidbord and Peterson engaged , at Van-
dergrift , in various acts constituting interference,
restraint , and coercion within the scope of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, and whether the withdrawal of
recognition at Vandergrift constituted an unlawful
refusal to bargain within the scope of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act. It also involves allegations and
denials of unfair labor practices within the scope of
Section 8(a)( I) of the Act at the Baum Boulevard
plant in the nature of interrogation into union sym-
pathy by Reidbord and Silvaggio and creation of
the impression of surveillance of employee union
activities by Casper . It is also alleged that the Com-
pany assisted and dominated the Club , thereby en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the scope of
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
B. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
1. Vandergrift
a. Murray Reidbord
Reidbord is alleged , in the course of two talks on
or about March 26 and April 14 at the Vandergrift
plant , to have threatened employees with the clos-
ing of the plant if they retained the Union as their
bargaining representative , to have promised em-
ployees longer work hours and other benefits to dis-
suade them from keeping the Union as their
representative , and to have suggested to employees
that they attempt to decertify the Union and form
an independent labor organization. The Company
has denied these allegations . There is no doubt as
to Reidbord's addressing Vandergrift employees on
or about the dates in question ; there is a dispute as
to the contents of his talks.
Mavis Cocco, a Vandergrift employee for some 8
years until her layoff in February, testified that late
in March she was called by Peterson and asked to
attend a meeting in the plant to hear a talk by Reid-
bord . Her account is that in the course of his talk
Reidbord said that it would not be possible to keep
the plant , which was then running only 1 day per
week , going under union representation because of
the financial burden of paying 4 percent of payroll
into the union benefit fund . He also, according to
Cocco, said that the girls in the Company's West
Virginia operations had a better benefit arrange-
ment with their own employee clubs under which
the girls paid $1 a payday, an arrangement which
Reidbord offered to institute at Vandergrift.
Geraldine Sproul, a 16-year employee at Van-
dergrift, was also called at home by Peterson and
asked to attend the March meeting. Her account of
that meeting is that Reidbord said he had been un-
derbid on a contract and that employees would
have to help him by foregoing union representation
in favor of a club arrangement like that in the other
company plants so that he could bid lower and get
more work.
Patricia Onifer a 5-year Vandergrift employee,
was on layoff when a company secretary
telephoned her to attend the March meeting at the
plant . She testified that in the course of the meeting
Reidbord referred to the reduced workweek and
said that the plant was losing money because of the
cost of the union insurance program and that if em-
ployees were unorganized and had a club arrange-
ment for benefits . like in the West Virginia plants
they could have the same benefits for half the cost
whereas if they kept the Union he could see little
future for the plant.
Ruth Held, a 16-year employee of Vandergrift,
testified that in the course of the March employee
meeting Reidbord referred to tight competition and
to the 4.5 percent of payroll paid to the union
benefit program and said that he could not con-
tinue to give them work under the existing arrange-
ment . Also, in reply to an employee question, Reid-
bord said, according to Held , that the employees
could oust the Union by petitioning the Board for
an election.
Loretta Cappo, an 8-year Vandergrift employee,
testified that at the March meeting Reidbord asked
employees to consider ousting the Union because
of the 4 - 1 /2 percent benefit cost and replacing it
with a club arrangement like the Company had in
its West Virginia plants. In reply to a question Reid-
bord , according to Cappo, said that if employees
gave up the union work would probably flow in in
or about 2 or 3 weeks.
Beatrice Ward, a 19-year Vandergrift employee,
testified that in the March meeting Reidbord
referred to his efforts to get more work for the
plant and said that the only way he could see of
REIDBORD BROS. CO
getting work would be for employees to get rid of
the Union and its 4.5 percent of payroll benefit cost
which would enable him to bid lower on contracts.
In reply to an employees question as to how to get
rid of the Union, Reidbord, according to Ward, said
that four or five girls would have to go to the Board
offices for information on the matter.
Mary Morgan, a 17-year Vandergrift employee,
was called to the March meeting over the plant
loudspeaker Her account is that Reidbord said he
could not keep the plant operating under the Union
and that employees could form a club which would
be as good as the Union and he would match their
contributions of 25 or 50 cents per week. Accord-
ing to Morgan, Reidbord said employees could oust
the Union by going to the Board and setting up an
election.
At the second meeting at Vandergrift, that of
April 14, Cocco was again notified to attend by
Peterson. She testified that at this meeting Reid-
bord said that the West Virginia employees were
very happy with their benefit club, and that there
would be steady work if the Union were ousted at
Vandergrift, whereas if the Union were retained at
Vandergrift they would lose work and might have
to close the plant.
Sproull, notified at work by Peterson to attend
the second meeting, testified that Reidbord in-
formed the meeting that he would lend $5,000 to
start club benefits and said that the starting of the
club at Vandergrift would reduce overhead and
result in more employment.
Reidbord testified that he delivered the March
speech at Vandergrift as a result of a conversation
with Leff in which Leff voiced the fear of losing
girls as a consequence of the 1-day-per-week em-
ployment situation . Reidbord testified that in the
March meeting he stated that the Company had no
intention of closing Vandergrift and was, instead,
trying to obtain work to run the plant full time. He
stated that in a questioned-and-answer period he
explained that the plant had lost a longstanding
contract to a nonunion plant in Mississippi and
further that Vandergrift was noncompetetive to the
extent of the 4.5 percent of payroll paid to the
Union pursuant to the benefit program . He also
stated that it was only in response to employee
questions concerning the clubs at the West Virginia
plants that he explained their operation.
The second Vandergrift speech was delivered on
or about April 14 by Reidbord, according to his
testimony, as a result of a report from Leff to the
effect that Union Representative Delegatti had
distorted his remarks at the first meeting.5 He
S Leff , who testified on other matters, was not asked to corroborate Reid-
bord on this
325
testified that he had been informed of Delegatti's
words and asked for any employee questions to
clear the matter. According to his account some
girls asked about starting an employee benefit club
and he informed the group that he would arrange a
$5,000 company loan to be repaid later. Reidbord
denied stating that the Club would act like a union
and denied stating that more work would be a
speedy result of their ousting the Union. He also
testified that it was in response to employee Alice
Ameno's question as to an immediate vote on oust-
ing the Union that he referred to the need of an
employee group going to the Board's Pittsburgh of-
fices on the matter.
I do not credit Reidbord's account of the reasons
for and character of his remarks at these meetings
Rather, I credit the employee accounts, and par-
ticularly that of Sproull to the effect that Reidbord
said it would be necessary to have the help of em-
ployees in ousting the Union as a means of becom-
ing more competetive and insuring fuller employ-
ment. I conclude that- Reidbord's remarks con-
stituted interference with and restraint and coer-
cion of employees in their rights to continue union
representation without such employer interference.
It is also my conclusion that Reidbord's remarks ap-
pealing for replacement of the Union by a club ar-
rangement similar to that prevailing in the West
Virginia plants and his promises of financial
assistance in the establishment and operation of
such a club also constituted interference with em-
ployee rights under Section 7 of the Act.
b Irma Peterson
There is a dispute as to the supervisory status of
Irma Peterson, floorlady at the Vandergrift plant,
who is alleged to have, in or about May 1969,
threatened employees with closing of the plant if
the Union continued to represent them, inter-
rogated employees as to their union membership
activities, and sympathies, and created among em-
ployees the impression that their union activities
were under surveillance.
Leff testified that he is at the Vandergrift plant
every Monday and, generally, on Friday. It is clear
that in his absence Irma Peterson is in sole charge
of the 50 to 60 employees. It is also clear from Pres-
ident Reidbord's testimony that on occasion Peter-
son exercises her own judgment in such matters as
allowing time off for girls without consultation with
Leff. Cocco's credited testimony indicates that
Peterson assigns work and grants time off, and that
of Onifer is to the effect that Peterson transfers
girls to different jobs and orders improper work
redone. Peterson concedes that she seldom per-
forms manual work herself and that Leff has in-
427-835 0 - 74 - 22
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
structed her to enforce rules against excessive con-
versation in the plant . Since Peterson is in sole
charge of the Vandergrift operation most of the
time , assigns work, transfers employees, orders
work corrected, grants time off, and performs the
usual functions of supervision and since it is quite
plain that she performs her functions without any
superior in the plant most of the workweek I find
and conclude that she is supervisor within the scope
of Section 2(1 1) of the Act.
Onifer, whom I found to be a thoroughly credible
witness, testified that sometime around Memorial
Day she was talking to Peterson in the plant and
that Peterson asked her how she felt about the
Union and added that if the girls decided to keep
the Union Murray (Reidbord) was going to shut the
plant down. Although Peterson denied these ac-
counts I credit Onifer's testimony and find that in
these talks Peterson engaged in the interrogation
and threats as alleged in the complaint and that
thereby the Company engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
The complaint also alleges that in May the Com-
pany, through Peterson, created among employees
the impression that their union activities were being
kept under surveillance. In this connection, Ward
testified that sometime shortly after, Reidbord's
speech referring to employee action to oust the
Union, she joined a group which included Peterson
and complained about employee Marilyn Clauser
soliciting her signature on the decertification peti-
tion during working hours, to which Peterson stated
that she knew about this inasmuch as Clauser had
reported to her that Ward had refused to sign the
decertification petition. I cannot conclude that this
evidence suffices to make out a case of a creation
of the impression of company surveillance of em-
ployee activities regarding the Union. Neither do I
find any support for the General Counsel's position
in Tyrone Hydraulics, Inc., 161 NLRB 1476, cited
by the General Counsel. Accordingly, I shall
recommend dismissal of these allegations of the
complaint.
2. Baum Boulevard
a. Murray Reidbord
Reidbord is alleged in the complaint to have in-
terrogated employees concerning their union sym-
pathies and to have suggested to them the reactiva-
tion of the Club while promising increased com-
pany contributions to the Club for the purpose of
dissuading employee adherence to the Union
Helen Marchese, the only Baum Boulevard em-
ployee who testified at the hearing concerning
Reidbord's discussion at Baum Boulevard, testified
that in the course of an employee meeting in May,
which employees were instructed by Silvaggio to at-
tend , Reidbord disparaged union representation
and asked what employees were unhappy about and
why they wanted the Union. I credit Marchese's
testimony and find that this question, in the context
of disparagement of the Union consituted unlawful
interrogation and an unfair labor practice within
the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Reidbord is also alleged to have engaged in con-
duct constituting interference, restraint and coer-
cion by suggesting to employees, in or about April,
1969, the reactivation of the Club and promising
increased Company contributions to it for the pur-
pose of dissuading employees from union member-
ship and representation. It is clear that shortly after
Company receipt of the March 25 telegram de-
manding recognition at Baum Boulevard, Reidbord
called an employee meeting at that location for the
purpose of stating the reasons why the Company
felt employees should reject representation by the
Union. Employee Marchese testified credibly that
in the course of his talk Reidbord told employees
that it would be preferable to settle problems
among themselves without the intervention of a
third party, unmistakably referring to the Union,
and added that benefits available under the Club
could be increased with the Company matching in-
creased employee contributions. Reidbord's
testimony does not materially dissipate Marchese's
account. I find on all the evidence relating to the
April meeting at Baum Boulevard that, as alleged in
the complaint Reidbord suggested reactivation of
the Club as a substitute for union representation
and promised increased Company contributions as
a device for dissuading employees from union
representation in favor of Club participation,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within
the scope of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
b. Hugh Casper
Casper is alleged to have, at the Baum Boulevard
plant, created among employees the impression
that their union activities were kept under company
surveillance. I find no evidence to substantiate this
charge and recommend dismissal of the allegations
in this regard.6
c. Gregory Silvaggio
Silvaggio, admittedly a supervisor, is alleged in an
amendment to the complaint to have, in March, by
e The General Counsel 's brief points to an instance of Casper's telling
employees that he knew the union men had been around , this is plainly in-
sufficient to establish the creation of the impression of surveillance
r
REIDBORD BROS CO.
telephone interrogated employees as to their own
and their fellow employees' union activities Maria
Corradetti, an employee on layoff status in March,
testified that in the course of a telephone conversa-
tion with Silvaggio concerning her unemployment
compensation, Silvaggio asked her who had signed
for the Union and that she gave him the names of
four or five who had signed. Although Silvaggio de-
nied this account, I credit Maria Corradetti's
testimony and find that the Company, through Sil-
vaggio, engaged in unlawful interrogation in this re-
gard and committed the unfair labor practice al-
leged in the amended complaint.
C. Assistance and Domination and Support of the
Club
The Club was organized sometime in 1964 ap-
parently along lines established in the West Virginia
locations some 15 or 20 years ago. All Pittsburgh-
based employees of the Company are eligible for
membership but the instant case relates not only to
Baum Boulevard employees but also to Vandergrift
where the Company is alleged to have suggested
formation of a plan of representation patterned on
the Club. The Club's constitution and bylaws are in
evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 14. Member-
ship is voluntary after 30 days' employment and the
fundamental objective of the Club is stated to be
furnishing general welfare , insurance , and death
benefits and 40 percent for other approved expen-
ditures Benefits are financed through employee
monthly dues which, under the bylaws and practice,
are matched monthly by a company contribution.
The General Counsel points to a provision of the
bylaws to the effect that the Club's board of
directors shall act as a grievance committee as an
indication that the Club was empowered to act and
recognized as a labor organization. The more
reasonable interpretation of the provision in
question appears to me, however, to be that the
grievance authority conferred was in relation to
disputes arising as to eligibility for and disposition
of payments under the established benefit program
and that the section in question confers no authori-
ty on the board of directors to act as a collective-
bargaining agent In this connection there appears
to be a want of evidence that the Club ever
negotiated terms and conditions of employment
with the Company and I conclude that it did not
exist in whole or in part for the purpose of dealing
with the Company on collective-bargaining matters
The circumstance that the Club could by increasing
or decreasing dues effect an increase or decrease in
the amount of the company contribution and the
resultant benefit does not suffice to make the na-
ture of the Club that of a labor organization within
the scope of Section 2(5) of the Act. I find that the
Club was not a labor organization under that sec-
tion of the Act and accordingly shall recommend
327
dismissal of the allegations of the complaint relating
to Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
The evidence, however, abundantly indicates that
the Company used the existence and availability of
the Club as a device to interfere with employee
freedom in the exercise of their rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act. Thus, although Reidbord's
testimony would indicate that his reference to the
Club in speeches to employees of both Boulevard
and Vandergrift was only in response to employee
questions and that on those occasions he did no
more than explain the existence of benefits under
the Club plan, stated that the Company practice
was to match employee contributions, and ex-
pressed the Company' s willingness to make a loan
up to $5,000 to start Club operations, I credit the
testimony of the several employee witnesses casting
a different light on the matter . Thus, I credit the
testimony of employee Marchese which indicates
that, at the first meeting for Vandergrift employees
addressed by Reidbord, the latter introduced the
subject of the Club immediately after he had asked
the reason for employee dissatisfaction and their
apparent interest in the Union and was told by em-
ployees that they were interested in more employee
benefits. I also credit the testimony of Mavis Cocco
that Reidbord said at the first meeting that benefits
would be better under a club arrangement like that
in West Virginia than they would be under union
representation.
Geraldine Sproull credibly testified that Reidbord
said at the first meeting at Vandergrift that em-
ployees could help the Company by working under
a Club arrangement rather than under union
representation. Patricia Onifer testified credibly
that if employees elected to operate under a club
type arrangement they could have benefits com-
parable to those under union representation but at
half the cost, whereas if they continued under the
Union he could see little future for the plant.
Loretta Cappo credibly testified that Reidbord, at
the first meeting at Vandergrift, directly appealed
to employees to get rid of the Union in favor of a
club similar to that in the West Virginia plants.
I credit the testimony of employee witnesses and
find that on the occasion of the speeches in
question Reidbord directly appealed to employees
to reject union representation in favor of the
establishment of a system comparable to that in the
West Virginia plants, whereby an employee club
would handle benefit programs with company con-
tributions, and an initial loan, sharing in the financ-
ing burden of the benefit program.
It is concluded that in the appeals to the em-
ployees to reject the Union in favor of a club
benefit program as outlined above, the Company
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion
respecting employee rights under the Act.
D. Refusal To Bargain
The Union was certified June 6, 1952, as the
statutory representative of employees of the Van-
dergrift plant in the following, concedely ap-
propriate, unit:
All production and maintenance employees at
the Company's Vandergrift plant, excluding of-
fice clerical employees and guards, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Vandergrift employees were thereafter covered
under collective-bargaining agreements until the
expiration on September 1, 1969, of the most
recent agreement. By letter dated June 24, 1969,
the Company withdrew recognition of the Union as
representative of Vandergrift employees as of Sep-
tember 1, 1969. The letter asserted that the action
was taken because of receipt of notice of a decer-
tification petition' and because of a doubt of the
continued majority status of the Union. The Com-
pany's withdrawal of recognition is alleged to be an
unfair labor practice within the scope of Section
8(a)(5).
As the General Counsel's brief points out it is
well established that an employer may not withdraw
recognition from an incumbent representative
because of an asserted doubt of majority status un-
less its action is taken in a context devoid of unfair
labor practices and supported by objective indicia
of the representative's loss of majority status. Nu-
Southern Dyeing & Finishing, Inc., 179 NLRB 573.
The Company's action of June 24 was taken closely
following upon a substantial campaign of unfair
labor practices including coercive appeals to em-
ployees to reject the Union and absent objective in-
dicia of a loss of majority status.' I conclude that
the Company's withdrawal of recognition of the
Union as representative of Vandergrift employees
in the established unit constituted an unfair labor
practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the company set forth in section
III, above, and there found to constitute unfair
labor practices, occurring in connection with the
Company's operations described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
' I he decertification petition was filed June 5, 1969, by employee Ruth
Held, it was dismissed by the Regional Director on October 3, 1969,
because of the issuance of the complaint herein Previously, on June 15,
1958, the Company had filed an RM petition resulting in an election vic-
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the finding set forth above to the effect
that the Company has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, ►t will be
recommended that it be required to cease and de-
sist therefrom and from like or related practices
and take certain affirmative action as appears
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies
of the Act including bargaining with the Union
respecting an agreement covering the Vandergrift
employees.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the fol-
lowing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
purview of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees
respecting their membership in and sympathy for
the Union, the Company has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. By threatening closing of the Vandergrift
plant if the Union were continued as collective-bar-
gaining representative of employees, the Company
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By suggesting to employees the displacement
of the Union and the substitution of an arrange-
ment whereby employee benefits would be
furnished by the Club, the Company has engaged in
unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
6. All production and maintenance employees at
the Vandergrift plant, excluding office clerical em-
ployees and guards, professional employees and su-
pervisors as defined ►n the Act constitute a unit ap-
propriate for collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 7 of the Act.
7. By withdrawing recognition of the Union at
the Vandergrift plant and by refusing thereafter to
recognize and bargain with it as the statutory
tory for the Union and a recertification of August 20, 1958
" As the General Counsel points out, the mere filing of a decertification
petition is not an indication of loss of majority status nor of a good-faith be-
lief thereof
r
REIDBORD BROS . CO. 329
representative of employees , the Company has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
8 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
9. Except as specifically otherwise found herein
the Company has not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaints.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in
this case, it is recommended that Reidbord Bros
Co., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Coercively interrogating employees respect-
ing their membership in or sympathy respecting the
Union.
(b) Threatening closing of its Vandergrift or
other Pennsylvania plants if the Union became or
continued being the representative of employees
within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act.
(c) Suggesting to employees the displacement of
the Union as the representative of employees at its
Pittsburgh or Vandergrift plants in favor of
representation by or substitution of an arrangement
comparable to that of the Club
(d) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulation of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals , the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order of the Na-
(e) Refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union as exclusive representative within the mean-
ing of Section 9 of the Act of employees of its Van-
dergrift plant in the established appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) On request, bargain collectively with the
Union as exclusive representative of all Vandergrift
employees in the established appropriate unit as set
forth above, with respect to wages, rates of pay,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of
employment and embody in a signed memorandum
of agreement understandings reached as a result of
such bargaining.
(b) Post at its plants in Vandergrift and at Baum
Boulevard copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." [Board's Appendixes substituted.]"
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 6, after being duly
signed by the Company's authorized representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' o
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaints
herein be dismissed with respect to allegations of
unfair labor practices not herein specifically found
to have been engaged in.
tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read " Posted Pur-
suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
"' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall he modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "